Why do you think all African nations are broke? There are specific causes within each country, sure, but the root of all of this is neocolonialism as practiced by Europe and the United States. The IMF and World Bank facilitate this process by offering aid that comes with a heap of concessions, interest, and provisions that allow for continued presence. For example, not cooperating with a foreign nation in terms of exports or imports results in large tariffs and penalties.

This is the reason that rubber is extracted from Africa but refined in Europe or elsewhere, and then either sold back to Africa or on the global market. This is the reason that the largest diamond mines in the world are in South Africa but DeBeers, a European company set up by Cecil Rhodes during the Scramble for Africa over 100 years ago (I'm sure there are Illuminati conspiracies ready to pluck here), is able to operate a monopoly. This is why European nations are stuck in monocrop/cashcrop economies for export and not for internal consumption. You can't live off of cotton, chocolate, coffee, gum arabica, or plutonium. All of these are holdovers from colonization and the reason African countries are underdeveloped and many have devolved into militant states.

Like at Somalia, for example. "Somalia" only exists in Mogadishu. Other than that it is a lawless state full of militant individuals and pirates. Why? This is the resonance of the Cold War, exacerbated and directed by both the United States and former Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s. In a nutshell, the US and USSR pumped in a lot of money and a lot of weapons into the Horn of Africa, which brought a territorial conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia to a head. Haile Selassie is deposed by Mengistu in Ethiopia until 1987 and Siad Barre rules Somalia until 1991, both in dictatorial fashion. There was obviously plenty going on internally between these two nations, but the Cold War fueled the fire. Only now is new infrastructure (new meaning the paved roads built since Italy was ousted in 1941) being built in Ethiopia. The crisis of Somalia is obvious.

The main difference between the Horn of Africa and northern Africa though is religion; Christianity and Islam, respectively. There has been a long legacy of revolt in Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, all by Muslim leaders. These revolts have been couched in jihadist terms (see Muhammed Ali in Egypt, the Mahdi and then the Khalifa in Sudan, Umar Mukhtar in Libya, and Abd El-Kader in Algeria). These revolts are not about a fundamental clash with Christian Europe, but about the right to self-governance, which neocolonialism has made very difficult.

Gaddafi comes into power in a military coup, it's true, but as a means to remove puppet governance. Thanks to massive oil exports Libya became very rich, but not very democratic. Still, Gaddafi was a leading advocate for a united, autonomous Africa. He viewed militancy as the best way to do this, which is not surprising given that he was born into a colonized Libya and Africa. It is also not surprising given the number of US and European assassination attempts on his life. Why? To reestablish a ruler that will cooperate with the interests of the US and Europe because there is oil in Libya. Non-Africans don't give a shit about Libya unless there is something to be gained, which there is. And once Egypt and Tunisia had their own revolutions internally and civil war broke out in Libya there was the perfect opportunity for the US, Europe, and NATO to swoop in an expedite the process of removal. Boom, Gaddafi is dead in the name of democracy.

Cativ8, what you said makes perfect sense to me right until the end, then I get confused.

It looked like Gaddafi was cooperating with Europe at the end.
The US was anrgy over British deals with Gaddafi, the release of the Libyan prisoner from Scotland etc, just before it all kicked off?
Tony Blair and Bush saying he had "reformed" and had done what they asked re. weapons, AQ, and allowing torture chambers there?
The BP contracts he'd signed just before?
US unwillingness to enter at the start when UK and France were pushing it?

The events in the months/years before looked like Gaddafi was cooperating with Europe at least.

Was it simply to get a more pliable puppet? Did UK bomb following their securing contracts, just to mend fences with US (but they were in it before US was)?

Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:47 pm

Captiv8

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8546
Location: Third Coast

I'd have to read some very specific things to know for sure, but I'd wager that the UK and US were trying to pacify Gaddafi as they perceived some sort of uprising to be imminent. The last thing you want is a very militant and aggressive dictator with a lot of money and claims to nuclear weapons to totally loose his shit and do something drastic.

Gaddafi, for his part, was probably trying to retain a little power because he too knew that something serious was coming down the pipeline. I think he saw working with foreign powers, as opposed to against, as the best way for him to remain in the driver's seat. Unfortunately for Libyans, and Gaddafi, it was all a case of too little too late as the momentum for an uprising was well underway. Of course, it's impossible to know what's really going on behind the scenes with these three nations. Who knows what kind of backdoor deals and non-official promises were made in secret meetings.

Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:30 pm

MCGF

Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367

Captiv8 wrote: Gaddafi comes into power in a military coup, it's true, but as a means to remove puppet governance. Thanks to massive oil exports Libya became very rich, but not very democratic. Still, Gaddafi was a leading advocate for a united, autonomous Africa. He viewed militancy as the best way to do this, which is not surprising given that he was born into a colonized Libya and Africa. It is also not surprising given the number of US and European assassination attempts on his life. Why? To reestablish a ruler that will cooperate with the interests of the US and Europe because there is oil in Libya. Non-Africans don't give a shit about Libya unless there is something to be gained, which there is. And once Egypt and Tunisia had their own revolutions internally and civil war broke out in Libya there was the perfect opportunity for the US, Europe, and NATO to swoop in an expedite the process of removal. Boom, Gaddafi is dead in the name of democracy.

This may have a lot of truth to it, but you are missing an essential point: the average Libyan will be better off now and in the future than he was under Gaddafi; the fact that Gaddafi was overthrown for oil doesn't change the fact that now there is a democracy where before there was only a regressive, dissent-crushing dictator!

Are not the Libyans better off now that their oil profits can actually be shared and invested in their country? Must the interests of "imperial" powers and the interests of third world countries always be at odds?

Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:02 am

Captiv8

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8546
Location: Third Coast

MCGF wrote:

Captiv8 wrote: Gaddafi comes into power in a military coup, it's true, but as a means to remove puppet governance. Thanks to massive oil exports Libya became very rich, but not very democratic. Still, Gaddafi was a leading advocate for a united, autonomous Africa. He viewed militancy as the best way to do this, which is not surprising given that he was born into a colonized Libya and Africa. It is also not surprising given the number of US and European assassination attempts on his life. Why? To reestablish a ruler that will cooperate with the interests of the US and Europe because there is oil in Libya. Non-Africans don't give a shit about Libya unless there is something to be gained, which there is. And once Egypt and Tunisia had their own revolutions internally and civil war broke out in Libya there was the perfect opportunity for the US, Europe, and NATO to swoop in an expedite the process of removal. Boom, Gaddafi is dead in the name of democracy.

This may have a lot of truth to it, but you are missing an essential point: the average Libyan will be better off now and in the future than he was under Gaddafi; the fact that Gaddafi was overthrown for oil doesn't change the fact that now there is a democracy where before there was only a regressive, dissent-crushing dictator!

Are not the Libyans better off now that their oil profits can actually be shared and invested in their country? Must the interests of "imperial" powers and the interests of third world countries always be at odds?

I agree with you, as long as democracy free from outside interests and personnel exists. Libya needs to be totally independent and have a leader voted in by popular vote that considers Libya first and other nations second. A puppet democracy can be just as oppressive as a dictatorship.

And no, the interests of imperial powers don't have to be at odds with the Third World. They just typically are because imperialism establishes an asymmetrical relationship based on exploitation. Otherwise it wouldn't be imperialism. It would be true humanitarianism.

Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:02 pm

crash

Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5457
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption

Gaddafi was no African hero. His anti-imperialist ideology put him on the right side of conflicts sometimes - he was a big supporter of the ANC (Madela's organization) as well as the disenfranchised Tuaregs of the Sahel. But he also took plenty of action that is inarguably imperialistic: repressing Libyaís native Berber culture and renaming their towns in Arabic, putting in place friendly dictators in Chad and the CAR, and invading Chad and occupying its territory.

His actions within Africa were as bad (I would say worse) than his western opponents. Yet he gets the stamp of approval for opposing the West? This guy gave sanctuary to Idi Amin, gave weapons to Charles Taylor, started a war with Chad and attacked Egypt.

I think this conflict shined a light on the anti-imperialist left and separated the pragmatists from the crazies. There are plenty of logical reasons to have opposed NATO action in Libya (ideological opposition to military interventions, fear of mission creep, etc.), but if you think that Gaddafi was a hero, youíre either misinformed or plain stupid.

Quick comparison of Saudi Arabia and Libya: Both have similar petroleum revenues per capita. They also both have similar infant mortality rates, literacy rates, and life expectancy. I donít have information on Libya, but Saudi Arabiaís petroleum industry is entirely nationalized. So which one is the socialist paradise? If youíre going to give kudos to Gaddafi for Libyaís advances in social welfare, shouldnít you do the same for al-Saud?

In fact, Libya stamped down on dissidents even harder than Saudi Arabia. Speaking out against the government in Saudi will land you in jail. In Gaddafiís Libya it got you killed. Even after escaping the country dissidents had to live in fear. Libyan novelist Hisham Matarís father was kidnapped in Cairo and taken back to Libya. He hasnít turned up since the revolution prevailed and is presumed dead. Dozens of other dissidents were simply assassinated wherever they were.

It boggles my mind how people can defend this asshole.

I donít think that any of the NATO countries will have much of a say in Libyaís future. Italy, France, and the UK are certainly hoping for the new government to look their way when it comes to secure new contracts (the NTC has indicated that it will honor all previous contracts) but itís to be seen whether that will happen. I saw one statement from the NTC that said they would show no preference in the awarding of future contracts. The IMF certainly wonít have much influence since Libya, with all its oil wealth, isnít struggling under massive debts.

To imagine the future of Libya I think itís worth looking at Iraq. We invaded, directly ran the country for a year, guided the writing of the interim constitution, and maintained a significant military presence in the country for over 8 years. And whatís the result? An Iraqi government which is closer to Iran than it is to US and that just refused to extend the status of forces agreement to allow our troops to stay in the country. If thatís all we managed to get for all our efforts, what sort of influence could we apply to Libya?

Thatís the funny thing about the Neocons. They actually thought that we could simultaneously establish an democracy in Iraq and advance (short term) US strategic interests. Somehow they convinced themselves that an Iraqi democracy would be BFF with the US and Israel, lets us keep bases there in perpetuity, and remain an arch-enemy of Iran. Iraq is a far from perfect democracy, but itís certainly paying more attention to the wishes of its people than what the US government wants.

The same thing is true in Libya. Of course the West will apply pressure on the new Libyan government, and it might reap some benefits as a result, but we are not putting in place a puppet regime. Itís simply not possible. We donít have the influence.

On the other hand, we have a lot of influence over Egypt due to the massive aid package we supply them with (2nd only after Israel). The military is slowly but methodically moving the country away from the goals of the revolution, and weíre not applying any sort of public diplomatic pressure to counter that. Iíd imagine that behind closed doors weíre encouraging the military to set up a quasi-democratic system where they maintain ultimate control, maybe even going so far as to arrange for one of their own to be president. Weíve been partners with them for decades (both Sadat and Mubarak were military men) and we know we can trust them to protect Israel (and sell it discounted gas), maintain the blockade on Gaza, and keep that part of the Middle East as we like it. A true Egyptian democracy would be far harder to deal with as far as foreign policy goes. This is real imperialism in action, but we donít have a pseudo-socialist anti-imperialist hero getting bombed by NATO, so no one seems give a shit.

edit: And I never said all African nations were poor. What the hell I guess I missed this page of fail. Seriously, when did I say that? Anyway, I was only quoting the one article that I could find on the internet that gave any credibility to the theory I posed.

Bottom Line: no proof yet that illuminati's or the NWO or whatever are taking over Libya.

Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:53 pm

Captiv8

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8546
Location: Third Coast

Most African nations are poor though. South Africa represents 90% of the total African economy and that's because of the diamond mines. The reason for this, as I've mentioned, is the disparity between the means of production and ownership, i.e. neocolonialism.

I also watched a pretty good interview of George Ayittey on dictators in Africa by C-Span. It's 37 minutes long, and he has a cold, but it's generally pretty informative. One highlight is his analogy of what happens with dictatorships in Africa: they are like totally broken cars and the only thing that gets replaced is the driver. He references Gaddafi at one point, but I can't for the life of me remember where. Anyway, if you have the time I recommend checking it out: